| 1 |
El lun, 16-04-2012 a las 03:04 +0200, Jeroen Roovers escribió: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 11:55:04 +0200 |
| 3 |
> Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > Well, I currently manually do eix searching to check it, maybe would |
| 6 |
> > be a way to compare eix outputs with "${CATEGORY}/${PKGNAME}" from bug |
| 7 |
> > summaries (bugs without that naming structure would be uncovered by |
| 8 |
> > this, but we would still be able to easily check for obsolete bug |
| 9 |
> > reports). |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> I only started fixing summaries to include valid, canonical |
| 12 |
> cat/pkg[-ver] strings a few years ago because searching for a full |
| 13 |
> atom in bugzilla's search would otherwise (and still does) fail. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Before that it was mayhem, and it's mainly the older bugs you appear be |
| 16 |
> worried about. Having a list of bugs to fix the cat/pkg for would have |
| 17 |
> more uses than the one you're interested in. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> jer |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
I obviously agree, but both suggestions are not mutually exclusive I |
| 25 |
think :) |
Archives